liability and Product Advertising Research Essay

Mr. Ruvolo claims that after consuming two Taco Bell chicken gordita sandwiches, he contracted throat illnesses that led to sinusitis, gastritis, pharyngitis, and acute tonsillitis. In this instance, the question was whether Taco Bell and its food suppliers were responsible for the infections because they didn’t thoroughly inspect the chicken.

The two primary goals of tort law are to provide compensation and to act as a deterrent. (Abraham, 2017). He may use the stringent tort liability, negligence, and implied warranty of merchantability theories in this situation. He will have to provide evidence that the sandwiches were unfit for ingestion. Liability in tort law ensures that parties such as manufacturers are made strictly liable for injuries caused by their services or products. The Provisions are Captured under section 401A of the Federal Trade Commission Act and restated in the case of Estate of Pinkham v. Cargill (Epstein & Sharkey, 2016). In this case, the court applied two tests when determining the matter; the Foreign-natural doctrine and the reasonable expectation test. Thus, this theory requires Mr. Ruvolo to meet certain requirements for the suit to succeed. First, whether the sandwiches bought were subject to the implied warranty of common business practice and whether those sandwiches did comply with the existing warranty. In addition, he must show that the sandwiches were unfit for consumption at the time of purchase. That notwithstanding, he must show that the infections were because of the defective nature of the sandwiches. Finally, he will need to show that he suffered damages for these reasons. In this case, the law allows him to sue both the food distributors and Taco Bell.

Question five

In this case, the players suffer significant damage while playing Nintendo’s Wit video game. The players allege that the game has a defective wrist strap on their controllers which were designed to keep the controllers intact.

The law on strict tort liability subjects the defendants, Nintendo, to manufacture a reasonably safe product for their consumers (Feldman, 2014). In this case, Nintendo ought to have ensured that the product was fit for the purpose, which in this case lacked sufficient controller intact mechanisms. Due to this defect, the controllers crashed into other objects causing damage to the players. Therefore, the court may give remedies for the design of the physical equipment used together with the computers since the manufacturer has a duty to ensure that equipment’s are fit for purpose in the ordinary course of business.

Question seven.

After purchasing the clapper, Ms. Hubbs proceeded to use the product without following the instructions given on proper product usage. As a result, she broke her wrists and sued the product’s manufacturer for breach of warranty merchantability. Under this doctrine, the plaintiff must prove that the goods were not fit for purpose for him to recover damages successfully (Owen, 2014). In the case of Smith v. Coleman Co, the court noted that there ought to be adequate warnings and instruction on the use of products (Feldman, 2014).

One of the defenses outlined on product liability is the misuse or abnormal use of a product. For instance, in this case, Ms. Hubbs failed to read the instructions given and because of the abnormal use of the product, she broke her wrists. Therefore, she cannot recover any damages since the injury was as a result of her negligence and disregarding the instructions provided.

References

Abraham, K. (2017). The forms and functions of tort law. West Academic.

Epstein, R. A., & Sharkey, C. M. (2016). Cases and materials on torts. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.

Feldman, S. W. (2014). Expanded Merchant Tort Liability, Democratic Degradation, and Mass Market Standard Form Contracts—A Critique of Boilerplate: The Fine Print, Vanishing Rights and the Rule of Law, Part Two.

Owen, D. (2014). Products Liability Law, 3d (Hornbook Series). West Academic.